Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[Zorro1]

Because I believe in common sense?? That I dont' belive in voodoo, elvis sightings, alien abductions, Angels coming down to light Julius's Ceasars funeral pyoir, Vespian healing the blind and curing the lame with a touch of his hand, nor
do I see any reason to believe in the resurrection?? Come on now, get a reality check there.

Do you believe that Rome burned, that Julius Caesar fought the Gallic wars, and that Vespian order the destruction of Jerusalem?

If the answer is, yes, the question becomes, why?

I will give you my answer, and then I will wait for yours. I believe that Rome burned, that Julius Caesar fought the Gallic wars, and that Vespian order the destruction of Jerusalem for the same reason I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That is, given the same methods that historians use to determine the former, that latter is also vindicated. I don’t believe in Angels coming down to light Julius's Caesar’s funeral pyre, because those same methods do not vindicate that story.

Since you have no method, and reject any method used by historians, all you have is your personal bias. Show me the basis that you used to reject one event and accept another. In each case there will be no historical methodology involved, just your preference.

Go ahead prove me wrong!

There is a saying that Carl Sagan had... extrodinary claims needs extrodinary evidence. Where is your evidence?

Here is my answer:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/extraord.htm

Where is your evidence?? Where is your methology?

Go back and reread the thread I already gave this and you and I have discussed it.

Cathar's alternate explaination is merely showing the lack of reliablity of eye witnesses.

So, how do YOU determine which witnesses are accepted and which witnesses are not? I am sure you won’t have an answer for this either.

An actual car accident will leave at least one car, maybe two or more damaged. There will be physical evidence left behind. There is something MORE than just the claims of two witnesss that claimed to see a traffic accident.

But, as Cather points out, evidence can be planted. How do you know which is and which is not?

As far as I can see, you are desperately grasping at straws trying to make a 'faith position' be real. You are also trying to distract from the fact that you made a claim you can not back up. Remember what that claim was? You said by ANY objective methology for applying to historical work, you can prove the resurrection
happened. I have yet to see any of that from you.

I have offered criteria for examining evidence that is used by historians. I have presented 12 items considered facts by over 95% of all historians and scholars working in this area. I have offered some of the reasons and evidence given by those same historians for those facts. So, if you think you haven’t seen any evidence or methodology, go back and reread the thread. If you don’t like what I have written, I have referenced numerous authors and works that give far more detailed, you can go look it up for yourself.

You are the one who has rejected the criteria used by historians.
You are the one who rejects evidence accepted by even skeptic and atheist historians.
You are the one who rejects the finding of fact by over 95% of historians from all perspectives.

I accept all of these. So, which one of us is rational?

Z

[Lotan]

I have offered criteria for examining evidence that is used by historians.

Do you mean these…?

1)The criterion must be able to be met, at least in principle.
2) The conclusions of the criterion cannot conflict with known fact
3) The criterion must be objective. In other words, the test should yield the same result, regardless of the personal opinions of those applying it.
4) The criterion must be one which has been used in historical research and has been demonstrated as a reliable way of determining history. (from Post 41)

All of this has been though through already, and historians have more or less settled on the criteria by which they examine evidence, so one has to wonder why you think it’s necessary to re-invent the wheel. Possibly it provided an opportunity for you to advance polemical arguments against 'atheists'.
A physical 'resurrection' would conflict with #2, unless you begin with the presupposition that such a singular incident is a "known fact", in which case there is no need for a historical inquiry.
The 3rd criterion is an impossibility when applying inductive logic to a historical question. It is falsified by the criterion of Adequacy, which means that a hypothesis can have only a degree of probability (<100%) of being true. At some point the interpretation of that adequacy becomes the subjective opinion of the historical researcher. I suspect that this criterion, as well as the 1st one is an attempt to defend your (Habermas) methodology of selecting 12 'facts' based on a thinly disguised appeal to Popularity.

Or these…?

(1) Early written evidence.
(2) Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question.
(3) Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case.
(4) The principle of embarrassment.
(5) Antagonistic party agreement
(6) Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established.
(7) Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances?
(8) Context and expectation.
(9) Adequate cause.
(10) Principles of embellishment.

Hey! Look at #6! There's that 'appeal to Popularity' again!

I have presented 12 items considered facts by over 95% of all historians and scholars working in this area.

Oh yes, these…

Over the last 30 years there have been over 2,200 scholarly publications on the Jesus death, burial and events that followed. These scholars include staunch atheists, skeptics, liberals, moderates and conservatives. These articles and books are written in English, French and German. These scholars virtually all agree on a number of facts about Jesus death and following. Here is a list of these facts. Depending on the specific fact we find agreement from 95% to 99% on each of these:

1. Jesus died via crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted.
4. Paul, an adversary, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then Paul was converted.
5. Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus
6. The disciples were transformed as a result of appearances.
7. The resurrection was the disciple’s central message.
8. The disciples preached the message of the resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Jesus worshiped on Sunday.
11. Jesus death originally caused the disciples to despair & lose hope.

I will include one more that is accepted by over 75% of scholars:

12. The tomb was empty. from Post 270


Before addressing any of these, I'll point out that simply sampling the entirety of biblical scholarship for the past the 30 years is hardly any guarantee of objectivity. Odd, that someone so knowledgeable regarding logic should fail to notice this. We have no idea, for example, how heavily this sample is weighted toward the conservative viewpoint, or how many scholars are simply repeating the views of their predecessors. Perhaps only 5% of these scholars would be considered 'liberals'. How do we know? More importantly, how do you know? These so-called 'facts' are, at best, provisional.

1. Jesus died via crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
Jesus' crucifixion is probably as well attested as any claim about him, and I see no reason to question it. His burial is another matter. Crossan, as you know, has shown how exceptional an event Jesus' entombment (as described in the gospels) would have been.

3. James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted.
In Post 347 you list "…what we know about James from all sources." ("All sources" consisting of Paul’s epistles, the Gospels, Josephus, and Hegesippus. Apparently non-canonical references, patristic citations and even the epistle of James itself don't qualify!) Based on the totality of the evidence here is a growing tendency to view James as a part of Jesus" mission from the beginning, and to attribute the gospel charges of skepticism against Jesus' family as an evangelical creation to downplay their importance to his ministry. The alleged 'fact' that James converted as a result of a resurrection appearance is conjecture, and is not mentioned in the NT.

4. Paul, an adversary, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then Paul was converted.
That’s how the author of Acts tells it, but Paul never says that. He does admit to receiving a revelation of Jesus (Gal. 1) and that Jesus appeared to him (1Cor. 15) but he never claims that the appearance led to the conversion. It's just as likely that the reverse was the case.

5. Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus
Who "experienced" Jesus first? The NT accounts conflict somewhat. Extra-canonical accounts conflict even more. However as I said earlier, at least your terminology isn’t bad; they "experienced" what they "believed".

6. The disciples were transformed as a result of appearances.
They were, were they? It's amazing that you can claim that these 2,200 scholarly publications are the basis for any sort of objective investigation. This point is pure apologetic.

7. The resurrection was the disciple’s central message.
Which disciples, when? I doubt that that was the central message when Jesus was alive, and if the gospels are to be believed the apostles didn’t know about it. The central message while Jesus was alive was…

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel. - Mark 1:15 and par.

8. The disciples preached the message of the resurrection in Jerusalem.
Quite possibly, yes. What do you think the "message of the resurrection" actually was though? The atonement? That's a later development. That Jesus was the 'first-fruits' of an eschatological general resurrection is a better fit for the 'Kingdom of God' message just mentioned.

9. The Church was born and grew.
That depends what you mean by "The Church" doesn't it? If Josephus is to be believed, then the Jerusalem "church" was led by an ultra-orthodox Judahist until at least 62 CE, and probably until the fall of Jerusalem at least.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Jesus worshiped on Sunday.
They kept the Sabbath too, and offered sacrifice at the Temple, otherwise it would be an error to call them "orthodox". This is another case where the evidence can be found only in Acts. We know that Christians eventually began to meet on Sunday, but we just don’t know when. If it were a response to an alleged resurrection then we should have evidence of this practice from the earliest times, which we don't.

11. Jesus death originally caused the disciples to despair & lose hope.
That makes sense. It also makes sense if they ran away. The fact that they rallied, if indeed that's what happened, is hardly evidence for a resurrection, physical or otherwise. The simple belief that Jesus was in heaven guiding their ministry would be enough.

12. The tomb was empty.
What tomb?

As I mentioned earlier, you (or Habermas) at least chose suitably ambiguous language to describe these alleged resurrection phenomena…

"James experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus"
"Paul... experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus"
"Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus"
"The disciples were transformed as a result of appearances"

…which is probably not an accident. Since these "2,200 scholarly publications" are unlikely to have included a questionnaire, then we must assume that the various scholarly opinions on these 12 points were collected by a human being, subject to their own personal interpretation. So already we have at least 3 sources of subjective bias regarding these 12 'facts'; the personal biases of the scholars themselves, the bias represented by including bible scholars who are mainly bible believing Christians (The disclaimer "These scholars include staunch atheists, skeptics, liberals, moderates and conservatives." Tells us nothing about the proportion of this group.), and the bias of the person(s) who collected the various opinions.

For these reasons, particularly your appeal to Popularity, your methodology is neither objective nor logical. Even worse, once you begin your argument in earnest you abandon even those faulty guidelines that you previously insisted upon…

We will begin with I Cor. 15: 3ff.

Paul's laundry list!

Let’s start at the death of Jesus. Depending on several factors, the death of Jesus is dated c. 33AD, or perhaps a little earlier. If you are uncomfortable with this date, let me know the date you would prefer. 1 Corinthians was written c. 55 AD. This would put the writing of this passage around 22 years after the fact.

But Paul first "delivered" this information to the Corinthians when he "preached" at Corinth (I Cor. 15:1), that would be c. 50AD. That would date this material prior to 17 years after the crucifixion.

Conjecture. Whether or not you are able to shave 5 years off the age of this passage is immaterial as we will see…

However, vs. 3b-7 are not considered original to Paul. This is considered by virtually all scholars to be an early Christian creed that predates Paul’s trip to Corinth and subsequent letter (This is one 1 of 4 earlier creeds & hymns found in the letters of Paul that are accepted as authentic by Wells).

Now, this just isn’t true. Specifically, verses 5-8 are NOT "considered by virtually all scholars to be an early Christian creed…". I pointed this out earlier, but you conveniently ignored it…

"According to most scholars, in v. 3b begins an ancient creedal / liturgical list of the essential facts of Christian salvation. The connective /omicron.tau.iota/ ("that") introduces each article of the confession: ("I believe...")

That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;That he was buried;That he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;That he appeared....
Here scholarly unanimity vanishes. Most seem to feel that the credo extended at least this far, [32] some extending the original tradition to include the Twelve, [33] though Weiss excised the reference to the Twelve as a scribal gloss to harmonize the list with the Gospels. [34] Still others leave room for the reference to James and all the apostles. [35] Almost all would bracket the mentions of the 500 brethren (v. 6) and of Paul himself (vv. 8-10) as Pauline additions to the formula."
- from Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a Post-Pauline Interpolation by Robert M. Price. (from Post 288)

I'll take the opinion of a PhD bible scholar regarding the lack of scholarly consensus, over your assertion to the contrary, thanks. Undeterred by this evidence you happily make the same assertion again…

Well, if he got it from Jesus, then it is not original to him, is it? But, it is virtually unanimous among all scholars that Paul received this within 20 years of the crucifixion, the vast majority says between 3 years to 8 years.

Since you cited Wells as an authority on 1Cor. 15:3b-7, let's see what you left out…

"Contrary to what Habermas supposes, his case is not helped by the fact that Paul, in his statement about the appearances, is reciting an early Christian creed. That the earliest extant mention of the resurrection occurs in a formula handed down from even earlier Christians is readily explicable if the event is in fact unhistorical. The earliest Christians will simply have asserted that Christ died and was raised, and will have embodied these convictions in the kind of preaching formula that Paul here quotes. The next stage in the development will have been to offer supporting evidence by listing recipients of appearances, and this stage is represented in the Pauline passage. Such visions are, as Flew notes (p. 35), quite in accordance with religious psychology,[48] and Paul himself records that he and others were prone to supernatural visions (Colossians 2:18; 2 Corinthians 12:1-4)." (from Post 297)

Cherry picking isn't logical or objective.

So the only portion of the passages in question that is more or less universally considered to be early Christian creed is this…

…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…

Do you know what that phrase ”in accordance with the Scriptures” means? As I told you in Post 288 it means that they are exegesis, not history. IOW, the source of their belief in the 'atonement' and the 'resurrection' was a result of their interpretation of OT texts and NOT the result of any resurrection 'event'. It is only in the following verses that we hear that Jesus appeared" (opthe) to anyone. The belief predates the appearances.

Here's a little more from Professor Wells, from Post 310 which you entirely ignored…

"[This passage is likely an interprolation because of (a) it supports the later-written gospels; (b) because it found no where else in the Epistles (Pauls and others); and (c) is contains so much more knowledge of what happened in a work so lacking knowledge (inconsistent with Pauls admitted and demonstrated lack of knowledge, see Cor. 1:18-23)--JK]."

And in case you think that Paul regarded the resurrection as a physical event, here's something else from Post 310 that you missed…

Paul's idea of resurrection was eschatological. Jesus was the "first-fruits", but then everybody would (eventually) be resurrected, even those whose remains had long since disappeared. That means a new spiritual body for everybody.

But someone may say, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come back?" You fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. 1Cor.15:35-6
...skipping ahead...
There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies... 1Cor. 15:40
...skipping ahead some more...
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one. 1Cor. 15:44
...and one last time...
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1Cor. 15:50

How anyone could read that and think that Paul believed in a physical resurrection is beyond me.

The 1 Cor and Galatians materials show that the I Cor 15:3ff. is early, and is by an eyewitness and has the corroboration of other eyewitnesses (criteria # 1 and #2).

This material supports the following facts from our list:

1. Jesus died via crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted.
4. Paul, an adversary, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then Paul was converted.
5. Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus
7. The resurrection was the disciple’s central message.

Apparently you aren’t bothered by the questionable nature of this passage, nor do you even trouble yourself to address the evidence presented against your interpretation. Also, I had already demonstrated that the 1Cor. passage isn’t supported by Galatians as you claim. Is this your "objective, historical methodology" in action?
When I realized that much of your argument was a regurgitation of Habermas, I posted this link…

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_habermas.htm (from Post 321)

Price lists 3 major problems with Habermas' argument…

"Three major difficulties beset this erudite and clearly written essay. The first is the character of the whole as essentially an exercise in the fallacious argument of appeal to the majority."

"The second besetting sin is Habermas’s neglect of much recent scholarship that has put well into the shade much of the reasoning of Joachim Jeremias, C.H. Dodd, and even Rudolf Bultmann, to which he appeals."

"The third big problem with the essay is the lamentable leap in logic whereby, like a Scientific Creationist, Habermas seems to assume that the (supposed) absence of viable naturalistic explanations of the first resurrection-sightings proves the objective reality of the resurrection."

At least this time you tried to address these charges, sort of…

I saw the link to Price’s article and read it. This is where a basic knowledge of logic comes in handy. You just were not capable of recognizing the logical and factual errors that Price commits in his attack on Habermas’ article; so you fell for it. You wrote: “Darn, it even blatantly tells the fallacies.” If you read Habermas’ article and actually knew his position, you could have figured out (if you also knew something about logic), that Price was not telling you Habermas’ fallacies, but was committing his own. His first three "big problems," are all either factually wrong or missed points. The fallacies he suggests are misapplied. You don’t need a PhD. in logic to figure this out. But, some training is needed.

Let me translate for you…

"I’m such an expert on logic that I don’t even have to make an argument, all I have to do is assert that Price isn’t logical and everyone must believe that it’s true. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Is that pretty close? I might not be the logical genius that you are, but at least I can usually tell unsupported BS when I smell it.

I have offered some of the reasons and evidence given by those same historians for those facts.

Faulty reasons based on misinterpreted evidence?

You are the one who has rejected the criteria used by historians.

And bible scholars, don’t forget the bible scholars.

You are the one who rejects evidence accepted by even skeptic and atheist historians.

How do we know that the "skeptic and atheist historians" don’t represent 5% of the sample?

You are the one who rejects the finding of fact by over 95% of historians from all perspectives.

These are not facts, Zorro. They are opinions. (Psst...you left out bible scholars again.)

I accept all of these. So, which one of us is rational?

No one is entirely rational, I think we have already agreed to that.

So, if you think you haven’t seen any evidence or methodology, go back and reread the thread.

The problem is that your "objective, historical methodology" isn’t objective at all, and as a result, the conclusions that you draw from allegedly logical arguments based on this methodology are inevitably faulty. That's not logical. Better luck next time!

[Zorro1]

I have offered criteria for examining evidence that is used by historians.

Do you mean these…?

1)The criterion must be able to be met, at least in principle.
2) The conclusions of the criterion cannot conflict with known fact
3) The criterion must be objective. In other words, the test should yield the same result, regardless of the personal opinions of those applying it.
4) The criterion must be one which has been used in historical research and has been demonstrated as a reliable way of determining history. (from Post 41)

No, try again!

Not only have I listed the criteria used by historians, I have pointed out the particular criteria they have used in determining certain of the facts, as I went along.

You should really read the entire thread. It would make much of what you write unnecessary.

Most of the rest of your post, like most of your posts, can be chocked up to your ignorance of logic, as I have pointed out in past posts. Since I have no desire to teach logic to you and since in past posts you have already shown that you will reject any principle of logic that refutes your position, all I will say, as I have in the past, is take a class on logic. You simply can’t reason with a man that either doesn’t know the rules of reason or rejects the rules of reason when their application shows him wrong.

Z

[Cathar1950]

I have offered criteria for examining evidence that is used by historians.

Do you mean these…?

1)The criterion must be able to be met, at least in principle.
2) The conclusions of the criterion cannot conflict with known fact
3) The criterion must be objective. In other words, the test should yield the same result, regardless of the personal opinions of those applying it.
4) The criterion must be one which has been used in historical research and has been demonstrated as a reliable way of determining history. (from Post 41)

No, try again!

Not only have I listed the criteria used by historians, I have pointed out the particular criteria they have used in determining certain of the facts, as I went along.

You should really read the entire thread. It would make much of what you write unnecessary.

Most of the rest of your post, like most of your posts, can be chocked up to your ignorance of logic, as I have pointed out in past posts. Since I have no desire to teach logic to you and since in past posts you have already shown that you will reject any principle of logic that refutes your position, all I will say, as I have in the past, is take a class on logic. You simply can’t reason with a man that either doesn’t know the rules of reason or rejects the rules of reason when their application shows him wrong.

Z

Do you think you could write your criteria more clearly as Lotan?
We don’t want to chase all over looking for it.
The only ignorance of logic you have shown is your own.
You have yet to show anyone they are wrong and Confused has called you on it a number of times and on your poor logical skills, which you have repeatedly ignored or come back with insults. Lotan pretty much summed up your argument from Habermas and you have been everything but clear on "any criteria they have used in determining certain of the facts".
I find it hard to believe you passed a logic class that alone are capable of teaching logic.
It sounds like another dodge.

[Lotan]

No, try again!

OK. Maybe it's these...

(1) Early written evidence.
(2) Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question.
(3) Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case.
(4) The principle of embarrassment.
(5) Antagonistic party agreement
(6) Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established.
(7) Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances?
(8) Context and expectation.
(9) Adequate cause.
(10) Principles of embellishment.

You should really read the entire thread. It would make much of what you write unnecessary.

I have read the entire thread, and much of what I've written is unnecessary because your argument was flawed from the very beginning'

Most of the rest of your post, like most of your posts, can be chocked up to your ignorance of logic, as I have pointed out in past posts. Since I have no desire to teach logic to you and since in past posts you have already shown that you will reject any principle of logic that refutes your position, all I will say, as I have in the past, is take a class on logic. You simply can’t reason with a man that either doesn’t know the rules of reason or rejects the rules of reason when their application shows him wrong.

That's tough talk, but there's no substance to it. If you could defend your own logical fallacies you would, but instead you just claim that you could and hope someone will believe you.

[McCulloch]

Most of the rest of your post, like most of your posts, can be chocked up to your ignorance of logic, as I have pointed out in past posts. Since I have no desire to teach logic to you [...]

This is a freely accessible site with no academic prerequisites. Unfortunately, that means that we cannot assume a mastery of logic, history, theology, science, mathematics, spelling or grammar. If, in order to make your point, you must present a lesson in some principles of logic, then, on this site, that may be a requirement.

At the top of the page there is a Links link. On the links page, there is a link to Logic Resources Logic Resources which provides links to some rudimentary online logic resources that may be useful to this task. Notice that there is also a form where you may submit other online resources for consideration.

[Lotan]

If, in order to make your point, you must present a lesson in some principles of logic, then, on this site, that may be a requirement.

That is, unless he's just making an excuse as he did re the Robert Price review. Apparently I was just "not capable of recognizing the logical and factual errors that Price commits in his attack on Habermas’ article" so I "fell for it". What a joke!

[Confused]

If, in order to make your point, you must present a lesson in some principles of logic, then, on this site, that may be a requirement.

That is, unless he's just making an excuse as he did re the Robert Price review. Apparently I was just "not capable of recognizing the logical and factual errors that Price commits in his attack on Habermas’ article" so I "fell for it". What a joke!

I am so glad to hear I am not the only ignorant person here who can't seem to pick up on logical fallacies and can't grasp the concept of what a inductive or deductive logical argument consists of. I will ask Zorro once again, quit making others do you work. Show your methodology and prove you assertion. Period.

[Zorro1]

Most of the rest of your post, like most of your posts, can be chocked up to your ignorance of logic, as I have pointed out in past posts. Since I have no desire to teach logic to you [...]

This is a freely accessible site with no academic prerequisites. Unfortunately, that means that we cannot assume a mastery of logic, history, theology, science, mathematics, spelling or grammar. If, in order to make your point, you must present a lesson in some principles of logic, then, on this site, that may be a requirement.

At the top of the page there is a Links link. On the links page, there is a link to Logic Resources Logic Resources which provides links to some rudimentary online logic resources that may be useful to this task. Notice that there is also a form where you may submit other online resources for consideration.

As you may have noticed, I do not have a problem pointing out logical errors and explaining why they are errors. However, when, even after several errors have been pointed out and explained, the person who committed those errors continues (post after post) to insist they are not errors, there is not much more I can do. If you go back over the posts between Lotan and me, you will find this is the case. There is a great difference between explaining a point of logic, and having to teach the whole of logic from the very beginning, because the person doesn’t even understand the basic principles and differences between induction and deduction.

In a topic that is supposed to analyze the proper use of logic by Christians, it would help if those offering the analysis had an inkling of the basic principles of logic. If I have to give them lessons on logic, it should be obvious that their analysis of this topic is rubbish. And, if they continue to maintain their logical errors, even after those errors are pointed out and explained, they have proven themselves to be less than worthless in discussing this topic.

So, unless the topic has changed to, “Christians aren’t logical, because I don’t like them,” I will stand by my comments.

Z

[Zorro1]

If, in order to make your point, you must present a lesson in some principles of logic, then, on this site, that may be a requirement.

That is, unless he's just making an excuse as he did re the Robert Price review. Apparently I was just "not capable of recognizing the logical and factual errors that Price commits in his attack on Habermas’ article" so I "fell for it". What a joke!

I am so glad to hear I am not the only ignorant person here who can't seem to pick up on logical fallacies and can't grasp the concept of what a inductive or deductive logical argument consists of. I will ask Zorro once again, quit making others do you work. Show your methodology and prove you assertion. Period.

Because you don't understand the concept of an inductive argument, you don't realize that the majority of it has already been given. A set of criteria used by historians was given. Data was offered and passed the criteria, to be entered in as evidence. Facts were drawn from the evidence. The last step is to draw a conclusion from the facts. given those facts, it should be obvious even to youwhere this is heading. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. By that I mean that any other explanation must deny one or more of the facts.

We are done here.

Z